thar, I Chron. 4. 14. as he was in David's time, "next to Zadok, over all the Courses of Priests, &c." But does that Text fay fo much? Nothing like it. The Names of Zadok and Abiathar are mention'd indeed (as they are 2 Sam. 20. 25.) but fo are the Names of the other principal Officers, that acted under Solomon during his Reign. Abiathar having been High Prieft, or executing the High Priest's Office at the beginning of Solomon's Reign, his Name might well be inferted in the Lift, which the Author of Chronicles makes of Solomon's chief Ecclefiaftical and Civil Officers. Abiathar, folo nomine Sacerdos, ut vacantes in Imperio, &c. as Grotius. I believe Mr. H---gs is the firft, and 'tis likely, will be the last who will fuppofe Abiathar was ftill executing the Priefts Office in contradiction to a plain Text, 1 Kings 2. 27. which fays, he was thrust out from being Priest; and Mr. H---gs ventures to fuppofe this, only because Abiathar happens to be mention'd in a Lift of the Chiefs, who had acted under Solomon during his Reign.

§. 78. Mr. Hgs's next reason why Abiathar was not depos'd by Solomon, was perhaps never mentioned, nor never thought on by any body but himfelf. All the Learned Verfions, and Commentators, are against him in his new Notion. He fays, p. 14. that fhou'd be render'd, "Solomon wou'd have "thrust him out, &c. " Immanuel Tremellius, the Learned Junius, Caftalio, the Vulgar, the Seventy, and, I believe, all the Antient Versions, and those in Modern Languages that I have seen, agree with our Tranflation exactly, and are full against Mr. H---gs's Verfion. The Verfion of the Seventy is of very great Authority with all Learned Men, and that is as exprefs as any of the reft: and what confirms our Tranflation, and the Senfe wherein every body has understood this Text till now, is this; that in the 35th ver. of the fame 1 Kings 2.

K

'tis

'tis plainly faid, that Solomon put Zadok in the room of Abiathar; which cou'd not have been done, if Solomon only wou'd have thrust out Abiathar, as Mr. H---gs wou'd have it; and Abiathar had not been actually thruft out, depos'd, or depriv'd. Befides, 'tis obfervable, that immediately before, in the beginning of the faid 35th ver. 'tis faid, that Solomon put Benaiah in the room of Joab over the Hoft; and then 'tis added, that he put Zadok in the room of Abiathar. Whence 'tis evident beyond all Contradiction, that Zadok fucceeded in the room and stead of Abiathar, as Benaiah did in the room and ftead of Joab: A new General, and High Prieft, in place of the old ones. And as for Mr. H---gs his Criticism upon the Hebrew Verb, which is a future in Pihel of the Preter Signification, I don't find any ground for it in the Grammar of that Language, or any peculiar Idiom in that word to justify his Suppofition, but the contrary. How vain and oftentatious this Attempt to alter the Verfion appears in Mr. H---gs, I leave others to judge.

S. 79. And now, my Lord, we are come to Mr. H---gs's third Affertion; and that is, that the Kings of Judah had no Supremacy of their Priests, p. 15. What then? Suppofe that to be fo. Had not the Kings of Ifrael? Yes, Mr. H---gs fays, "They "had an abfolute Supremacy." Very well, that's as much granted as can be defir'd. For Solomon was King of the twelve Tribes: So according to Mr. H---gs, he then had an Abfolute Supremacy, and might therefore, if he pleas'd, deprive Abiathar, or any of the Priefts, not only upon a Civil, but alfo upon an Ecclefiaftical Account, if Mr. H---gs be right in faying he had an Abfolute Supremacy; but that, at prefent, is not worth Enquiry. Tho I cannot but obferve without pity, that Mr. H-gs very accurately informs his Readers what was the Foundation of this Abfolute Supre

macy,

macy, in these words It was founded upon this, fays he, that the Kings of Ifrael made the Priesthood and Religion over which they were fo Supreme. I leave this to be understood by others, for my part I can only admire, and wonder the Gentleman had but I no Friends to keep him from expofing. forbear, tho I must tell him, the very next Paragraph one wou'd think was written in Bem. No wonder then, that he goes on to give himself fuch Airs, and to conclude with abundance of Satisfaction in himself.

§. 80. He goes on, p. 19. to except against the Bishop for faying, Solomon claim'd a Right over the Life of Abiathar. I don't find it worded fo by the Bishop. However, no body can well doubt but fo much is imply'd in Solomon's words, "Thou art wor"thy of Death, but I will not at prefent put thee to "death." Because of the Duty and Affection he had shown to his Father David, that alone mov'd his Compaffion, and fufpended the Execution of Abiathar, and the depriving him of his Income at Anathoth; which being a Freehold for Life only, and a Perfonal Intereft, must have follow'd the Fate of its Poffeffor; it being in the King's power to have held, or receiv'd Abiathar's Income during his Life, which was the longest Term a Priest cou'd be Master of. As for the Allotment of forty eight Cities and their Territories out of the twelve Tribes, for the Maintenance of the Priefts by Divine Appointment, there was nothing fingular in that, forafmuch as the whole Country was by the fame Divine Appointment allotted to the twelve Tribes, Joh. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. So that if fuch Appointment render'd the Title of the prefent Poffeffor indefeizable, then there cou'd be no Forfeiture of any other Man's Title that was not of the Sons of Aaron.

S. 81. My Lord, Mr. H---gs had a mind to make his Paper remarkable, by pretending to fhew, that fome Principles advanced by the Bishop of Bangor are deftructive of all Reveal'd Religion. This bold Suggestion he takes care to make the very firft Article in his Title-Page. How this becomes the Title of his Paper, which is call'd, A Modeft Enquiry, I leave others to judge; and defire he wou'd well confider, especially at this Seafon of Humiliation. Surely a modeft Man wou'd have been far from treating thus a Bishop of his own Communion, unless the grounds he went upon were clear and undeniable. In this modeft manner our Bishops and Divines were attack'd in James II's Reign by the modeft Priests and Fefuits, who writ to the Mob; luftily affirming, and ftoutly denying whatever was for their purpose. They thought to carry all by Blufter and Noise. Had Mr. E---ry, or Mr. H---gs, or any of the Bishop's Anfwerers, been the Disciples of Loyola, they cou'd not have treated a Proteftant Bishop in harder Terms, or with more groundless Clamour and ftupid Reflections. If a Man had not a great mind to cavil, wou'd fuch a Paffage as Mr. H---gs refers to in the 78th Page of the Bishop's Prefervative, be made the ground of fo terrible an Accufation, as that the Bishop's Principles feem deftructive of all Reveal'd Religion? To give colour to this Charge, Mr. H---gs is oblig'd to be very obfcure, and unfearchable in his Arguments. Had I a mind to divert my Readers, I might come upon him directly, and prove that Mr. H---gs's Notions overthrow the whole Defign of the New Teftament, and the express Doctrine of all the Antient Creeds; who all affirm, in every place, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, fent of God, receiv'd Power from God, was God of God, begotten of God, &c. whereas Mr. H---gs, in contradiction to all thefe, affirms, Chrift is a Self-existent Being.

Again, how eafy is it to charge Mr. H---gs with fapping the Foundation of the Chriftian Religion, by his deriving, p. 25, 26. the great Evidence of the Christian Religion from a Regular uninterrupted Succeffion of Perfons qualify'd and regularly Ordain'd? &c. For this is his Chain of Evidences" The "Evidence of the Chriftian Religion were miraculous "Facts the Sacraments are the Memorials of those "Facts, and a Regular uninterrupted Succeffion only, "&c. can preferve thofe Memorials, and affure us that ડર they are for fuch a purpose, &c." purpofe, &c." The Papifts build the Authority of the Canon upon the Authority of the Church, by which they mean Ecclefiafticks. Mr. H---gs builds the Authority of the Chriftian Religion upon the fame Foundation, in other Words.

. 82. In his fifth Section, where the Bishop is treated with fo little Reverence, and the Evidence of the Christian Religion plac'd by Mr. H---gs upon fo fandy a Foundation; he points fome artless Reflections against fome of the greatest Divines of our Church, who making the Scriptures their Rule, and genuine Antiquity their Guide, have with honeft Courage imitated their Forefathers who liv'd before, at, and fince the Reformation. If Perfons were to be blam'd for altering their Judgments, to what purpose are all Scripture-Inftructions and Exhortations? Not to grofs Miftakes, is to be Stupid; not to own what we fee, is to be Hypocrites; and to condemn the Apostles, and many of the Primitive Fathers, whofe Glory it was that they alter'd their Judgments, and openly profess'd it, tho it coft 'em their Lives. I with this Gentleman wou'd fo well confider Perfons and Things, as to mend his Mistakes, and acknowledge 'em too. Wou'd any body that has a true regard for his own Character, be guilty of fuch Trifling as he plays upon his Rea

ders